Replies

Said tacticalogicWhat absolute reference point do you use? Either way you get a angular velocity of 0.00416°/second between you and the sun.

The important thing to remember is that once the light waves leave the sun, they travel on their path (pretty much a straight line) regardless of whether the sun stays where it is or whether it moves. So if the sun did move across the sky 2.1 degrees in 8.3 minutes, then yes, by the time the sun's light reached the earth, the sun would be 2.1 degrees ahead of where it appeared to be. But as it is, the 2.1 degrees per 8.3 minutes is the rotational rate of the earth - not the orbital rate of the sun. Thus the light will still be traveling in a ~straight line from the sun to the earth, and as a result, the direction from which the light hits the earth will be that of the direction of the sun - in other words, it will appear to be where it is as far as Light-Time correction is concerned. (It will appear about 20 arcseconds advanced due to the transverse velocity of the observer on earth due to the earth's orbital velocity in meters per second around the sun -- but this has nothing to do with the distance to the sun.)

Does that help? If not, here's something that would explain it even better:

According to LeGrande's statements of how things work, if there was a stationary planet 12 light hours away and above the equator of the earth, for an observer on the earth at any instant in time, the said planet would appear in the east when it was really in the west, because of the fact that the earth rotated 180 degrees in the 12 hours it took the light to reach it. Now have you ever heard of anybody claiming such a thing?

While no planet comes to mind which is exactly 12 light hours away, Pluto is at the farthest parts of its orbit about 6.8 light hours away - enough time for the earth to rotate 102 degrees! So according to LeGrande's theory, Pluto, when we look up with a powerful telescope and see it, will actually really be below the horizon -- and not even in the night sky!

Have you ever heard of any such claims? So far LeGrande has not presented to me (or anywhere that I know of) a single scientific source making the same claim as him. And yet he stands behind it. (That is to say that he stands behind his claim of 2.1 degrees. But so far he's refused to answer me my question about if Pluto is really not even in the night sky when we look up and see it because he knows that his claim would then be obviously wrong.)

So this leaves me in the awkward position of realizing that if LeGrande will unwaveringly hold to a wrong idea and refuse to admit he's wrong even when it's obvious, then how much more will he hold onto a wrong idea and pretend it's true when noone's got evidence against it? So I know that I cannot put much weight on what LeGrande says - unless he can find valid sources to support it (in which case the weight is on them, not him.)

But this brings up yet another question in my mind - is this an Atheist thing? Are lots of Atheists like this - knowingly holding onto and stating as true, ideas that they know are wrong? Well, the proof is in the pudding - all I have to do is look around and see how other Atheists respond to LeGrande's claims. Do they say out right "LeGrande, that's absurd. you're outright wrong?" I haven't seen it yet. Show me if you find it. As far as I can tell, any Atheist who's nibbled into the discussion of LeGrandean Physics realize that LeGrande's not being honest, but rather then saying "Wait a second, LeGrande, this isn't right you should stop" they just sort of politely wonder off maybe with a small indication of concession, not wanting to counter a fellow Atheist. And why is this important? This point is important because now I know that if there was Atheists who were knowingly telling lies, all the other Atheists would just let them do it. And so this is why Science Education is in such shambles today.

Does that help?

So will you join ECO, Fichori, and me in publicly stating that LeGrande's 2.1 degrees is false and that he is being dishonest for maintaining his claim and yet refusing to answer whether the same theory also goes for Pluto and an imaginary planet that is 12 light hours away? Any other takers? See, that's what happens: An Atheist or Evolutionist (or more specifically an All Species By Evolution-ist) makes an untrue claim, all the other Atheists or ASBE'ers just sit quiet, so the only people which complain are non-Atheist or non-ASBE'ers -- then the Atheists & ASBE'ers say "See? we all agree. It's just them complaining!".

Thanks,

-Jesse

But this brings up yet another question in my mind - is this an Atheist thing? Are lots of Atheists like this - knowingly holding onto and stating as true, ideas that they know are wrong? Well, the proof is in the pudding - all I have to do is look around and see how other Atheists respond to LeGrande's claims. Do they say out right "LeGrande, that's absurd. you're outright wrong?" I haven't seen it yet. Show me if you find it. As far as I can tell, any Atheist who's nibbled into the discussion of LeGrandean Physics realize that LeGrande's not being honest, but rather then saying "Wait a second, LeGrande, this isn't right you should stop" they just sort of politely wonder off maybe with a small indication of concession, not wanting to counter a fellow Atheist. And why is this important? This point is important because now I know that if there was Atheists who were knowingly telling lies, all the other Atheists would just let them do it. And so this is why Science Education is in such shambles today.

Many DC'ers would level a similar accusation against FReepers who ignore the most bull-headed creationists and the most strident of their postings.

The problem is, in a highly partisan debate, most people tend to overlook the flaws in members of "their side" -- until the person's embarrassment becomes too much to ignore, and they are quietly shunted aside. He's not *really* representative, and besides, "his heart is in the right place"^TM (or "he's fighting the forces of ignorance"^TM, for you militant scientists and/or atheists out there.).

You know the drill.

The main difference seems to be whenever people post on "the other site" with the tenor and flavor of posts on their home site, they get into trouble.

DC publicly prides itself on its strong intellectualism, but it seems to me to be shaded more by atheism and by libertarianism as much as intellect.

FR is not quite an echo chamber once you leave the crevo threads: regardless of (say) the bug-zapper (Giuliani) thread, there are Bushbots, Sarah-bots, economic conspiracy nuts and day traders here, all jostling along.

And I don't see any threads here more or less exclusively devoted to either spying on, gossiping about, or reporting on troll incursions onto DC.

Cheers!

I am back. I had to make a quick flight down to LA while the weather window was open.

But as it is, the 2.1 degrees per 8.3 minutes is the rotational rate of the earth - not the orbital rate of the sun. Thus the light will still be traveling in a ~straight line from the sun to the earth, and as a result, the direction from which the light hits the earth will be that of the direction of the sun - in other words, it will appear to be where it is as far as Light-Time correction is concerned.

This is the crux of the whole matter. Mrjesse claims that the suns actual position is where it appears to be from the perspective of a person on the earth. He agrees that if the Sun orbited a stationary Earth, its actual vs apparent position would be off by 2.1 degrees, but he objects to the idea that a spinning earth vs a stationary Sun is equivalent. They are : )

Let me provide another thought experiment : ) Lets say that mrjesse and I are floating around in empty space with radar guns. mrjesses looks at his radar gun and sees that I am approaching him at 10 mph. I look at my radar gun and see that mrjesse is approaching me at 10 mph. What is the reality? Who is really moving? At what speed?

The reality is that all that can be determined, is that the two floaters are coming together at 10 mph. Each floater might be moving to the other at anywhere from 0 to 10 mph. All that can be determined is that the sum of the speed adds up to 10 mph. I might be stationary or mrjesse might be stationary or we might both be moving.

The important point is that it is entirely valid for me to assume that I am stationary and that mrjesse is coming at me and mrjesses can also correctly infer that he is stationary and I am going to him. Trivially, this is the equivalence principle.

Now back to our observer on the earths equator. As far as the observer is concerned, whether the earth is spinning or the Sun is orbiting the earth (or some combination) is equivalent. The observations for the observer will be identical.

The fact is that it takes light apx. 8.3 minutes to get from itself to the observer. If the observer pounds a stake into the ground pointing at the sun, then waits 8.3 minutes and points another stake into the ground pointing directly at the sun, the measured angular difference will be apx. 2 degrees.

What does this little experiment show the observer? A lot of things actually, but for our purposes the second stake is pointing at the suns actual position when the first stake was pounded in the ground pointing at the sun.

MrJesse apparently believes that both stakes are pointing at the suns actual instantaneous position. The only way that could be true is if the speed of light is instantaneous, which of course it isn't.

The ball is in your court mrjesse. Given that we know that it takes light 8.3 minutes to get to our observer on the equator from the Sun, how do you explain that the Sun is exactly where it appears to be if the earth is spinning, but 2.1 degrees off if the Sun is rotating the earth.